https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8129

Board of Management Maranda High School v Intra Africa Assurance Co. Ltd (Civil Case E008 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8129 (KLR) (11 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8129 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Siaya Civil Case E008 of 2025 DK Kemei, J June 11, 2026 Between Board of Management Maranda High School Plaintiff and Intra Africa Assurance Co. Limited Defendant Ruling 1.The Defendant has filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 26/1/2026 which raises the grounds inter alia; -i.That this Court lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit whose value is Kshs. 12,760, 120/= in light of Section 7 of the Magistrate’s Court Act Cap 10, Laws of Kenya.ii.That the suit is misconceived, devoid of merit, and an abuse of the Court’s due process. 2.The preliminary objection was canvassed by way of oral submissions. 3.Mr. Ochieng for the Defendant, submitted that the Defendant is challenging the jurisdiction of the Court first before it proceeds to file a statement of defence. Learned Counsel urged this Court to allow the preliminary objection as good reasons have been presented. 4.Mr. Makokha, for the Plaintiff, submitted that the preliminary objection is misplaced as the High Court has original jurisdiction in both civil and criminal matters. That the Magistrates Court Act cannot bar this Court from handling the matter. Learned Counsel urged the Court to reject the preliminary objection and proceed to adopt or endorse the Plaintiffs' request for judgment dated 16/2/2026. 5.I have considered the preliminary objection and the oral submissions. I find the issue for determination is whether the preliminary objection has merit. 6.A preliminary objection was defined by Law J.A. in Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Company Limited vs West End Distributors (1969] E. A. 696 as follows; -“so far as I am aware, a preliminary objection consists of pure point of law which has been pleaded or which raises by clear complication out of pleadings and which, if argued as a preliminary point, will dispose of the suit. Examples are an objection to jurisdiction of the Court, a plea of limitation or a submission that the parties are bound by the contract giving rise to the suit to refer the matter to arbitration…..”Also, in John Musakali vs Speaker County of Bungoma & 4 others (2015) eKLR, it was held as follows; -“The position in law is that a preliminary objection should arise from the pleadings and on the basis that facts are agreed by both sides. Once raised, the preliminary objection should have the potential to dispose of the suit at that point without the need to go for trial. If, however, facts are disputed and remain to be ascertained, that would not be a suitable preliminary objection on a point of law.” 7.From the foregoing authorities as juxtaposed with the Defendant’s notice of preliminary objection, it is clear that the aforesaid preliminary objection is based on a pure point of law, namely that this Court lacks the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. 8.The issue of jurisdiction was enunciated as the case of Owners of the Motor Vessel Lillian “S” vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited (1989) KECA 48 (KLR) where Nyarangi J A held as follows; -“A question of jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity and the Court seized of the matter was then obliged to decide the issue right away on the material before it. Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a Court had no power to make one more step. Where a Court had no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A Court of law downed its tools in respect of the matter before it, the moment it held the opinion that it was without jurisdiction.” 9.It is noted that the crux of the Defendant’s preliminary objection is that the value of the subject matter demands that the suit ought to be lodged in the Magistrate’s Court but not in the High Court. The Defence Counsel has placed reliance on Section 7 of the Magistrate’s Court Act. 10.Under Section 7 (i) of the Magistrate’s Court Act, pecuniary jurisdiction is given to each category of Magistrate’s Court as follows;-i.Resident Magistrate – up to KShs 5 millionii.Senior Resident Magistrate – Up to KShs 7 millioniii.Principal Magistrate – up to KShs 10 millioniv.Senior Principal Magistrate – up to KShs 15 millionv.Chief Magistrate – up to Kshs 20 millionIt can be seen from the foregoing categories that the claim herein would fall under the Senior Principal Magistrate’s court. It is the contention of the Defendant that the suit should have been lodged in the lower Court. 11.It is not in dispute that the High Court is a superior court of record with unlimited original jurisdiction in both Civil and Criminal matters pursuant to Article 165 of the Constitution. Hence, the High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction to hear and determine all civil and criminal cases across the country.Again, under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act, the High Court, either in application or suo moto, may at any stage transfer a case pending before it to a competent subordinate Court or withdraw a case from a subordinate Court to try it itself, transfer it to another competent subordinate Court or return it to the original Court. 12.From the foregoing, it is clear that this Court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the matter as filed. It is not upto the parties to decide for this Court on how and what to do with such a matter. The suit as it is, is properly before this Court and that it is the discretion of this Court to decide whether or not to try the matter or transfer it to the subordinate Court. Hence, any of the parties herein were expected to move the Court for transfer of the suit backed by sufficient reasons but not to claim that this Court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction. The Defendants' premise from the prism of the preliminary objection is clearly erroneous and must be rejected. 13.In view of the foregoing observations, it is my finding that the Defendants preliminary objection dated 26/1/2026 is devoid of any merit. The same is dismissed with costs. As the Defendant has entered appearance, it is now ordered to file and serve its statement of defence within the next seven days from the date hereof failure which the Plaintiff’s request for judgment dated 16/2/2026 stands adopted and or endorsed. DATED AND DELIVERED AT SIAYA, THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.HON. D. KEMEIJUDGEIn the presence of;-1. Ochieng for Kabata.............for Defendant2. Makokha.....................for Plaintiff3. M/s Maurine................Court Assistant